255
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml to c/games@lemmy.world

Valve refused to comment for the video.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world 1 points 6 minutes ago

where he squarely puts the blame on Valve

I know G*mers are far to Stockholmed by the monopolistic hell scape that Valve is responsible for.

But it's nice to see someone say it.

[-] mhague@lemmy.world 1 points 26 minutes ago

I've heard more stories about CSGO over the years compared to other gambling games, but never heard people criticize the game like they do FIFA. It's just my corner of the world, where Valve is a holy corporation.

[-] nothingcorporate@lemmy.today 36 points 17 hours ago

As an old person who only kinda knew that lootboxes exist, this series was a huge eye opener to the insane amount of money and industry that has emerged around them. 10/10 would recommend to my fellow olds.

Now to head back to Bioshock where the only cost to looting boxes is that I might get attacked by a splicer.

[-] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 3 points 11 hours ago
[-] Cossty@lemmy.world 87 points 1 day ago

Honestly, Valve should just ask for proof that you are 18+ if you want to sell items on Steam market or trade them.

Easiest solution IMO.

[-] Nalivai@lemmy.world 1 points 41 minutes ago* (last edited 41 minutes ago)

It is a solution for underage gambling, but adult gambling is also a problem

[-] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 29 points 21 hours ago

Not going to happen since Valve doesn’t want to manage a database of IDs. It’s why sex games with real life actors aren’t allowed on Steam since that would require Steam to have IDs and consent contracts of all the actors stored on their side.

And Gaben is a hardcore libertarian, probably despises government IDs.

[-] Katana314@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago

Previously, I had mused over vague ideas about whether blockchain technologies could go into a "proof of real person" system, by one-way-hashing information used to verify only basic details about a person. Eg: They exist, are a unique person, and are over a certain age. Ideally, it could be set up in a way that cannot easily correlate them between company databases.

That said, no real need to poke holes in the idea, because...that was the easy part, and it will probably never happen (or be far more draconian than I describe)

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

It absolutely can be done with zero knowledge proofs, but it needs to be from an authoritative source.

It could prove you are over the age of 18 (or 21) without having to divulge any other sensitive information, and be untrackable between sites or any outside agency (e.g government doesn't know and can't know you visited a site or location that verifies your age)

They could add it to our drivers licenses or passports or whatever which would cover the authoritative part. Your ID is an NFT at that point, and could be fully digital.

Edit: they might even tie generating the proof to requiring a biometric verification (fingerprint) so you can't give your ID to someone else.

[-] CosmoNova@lemmy.world 53 points 1 day ago

When they were asked to implement age verification in Germany, they simply pulled anything off their platform in the country that would require it instead. Mind you Germany has a system that makes age verification anonymous so if privacy concerns you, you could just implement it. (Almost no platform does because they want your data though.)

Valve doesn’t want to touch age verification with a 10 yard stick and that tells me it is probably the way to go here. Because once they have it, the path for more regulations is clear.

In this arena, more regulation is needed. Anonymous age verification is a good idea, but I question the actual anonymity. It usually depends on trust of some entity. And I just can't fathom an entity that can really be trusted.

[-] CosmoNova@lemmy.world 9 points 15 hours ago

Well the entity is the government. You know, the guys who create your ID in the first place. It’s not perfect but it’s the best one I could conceive.

[-] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

You can trust them to create the ID because it benefits them. But to guard you anonymity... that actually hurts them. So you can be sure they won't.

[-] CosmoNova@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Foreign corporations are much more aggressive about harvesting data than the German government so you should think twice about using their products in the first place. Most of the time the German government is under fire for privacy concerns it’s because they trusted products from Microsoft or Huawei and the like.

[-] Anivia@feddit.org 15 points 19 hours ago

It uses the government ID, which has a built in NFC chip. You can use a phone in combination with your ID and it's pin to verify your age online. The ID scanner app will tell you which parameters the website requests from your ID, and its possible to only request the birthdate.

I don't like the system, but it is truly anonymous

[-] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 11 points 18 hours ago

Sounds like it is only anonymous if you fully trust the app. That app has all your information, and the site you are trying to access. And I bet it is completely closed source. It also likely has logs about what sires it is giving information to. Not who's info in that log. But elsewhere it probably has logs on who's id it verified. Get access to both, and software can start to crunch the numbers and figure out who went where. That if course is assuming they don't decide in the future that it is worth just keeping that data together in one spot. There is just no entity that could manage that app which wouldn't have a motive to use the data and power it has.

[-] Anivia@feddit.org 22 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

No, the app is completely open source and has reproducible builds. And the site you are accessing only gets the information it requested, and you see which information it requested in the app before scanning your ID

https://github.com/Governikus/AusweisApp

[-] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world -1 points 5 hours ago

Now you are starting to sound like you know what your talking about. But I'm not convinced yet. So when the app sends just the requested data to the site, how does the site verify that the data is legit. A person could fork the app and hack it. I am sure they thought of this, I just don't know what thier solution is. And I can't read german.

[-] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 1 points 16 hours ago

This. ID and anonymity are antithetical

[-] fatalicus@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

If all the ID consists of, then no it's not.

As long as the part asking for ID trusts the part verifying the ID, there is no need for anonymity to be broken, since the verifier just has to confirm what the asking part needs to know.

Think of it like someone owns a bar and needs to know if a patron is old enough to drink, and the bar owners brother or best friend says "I know that guy, he is old enough".

load more comments (20 replies)
[-] Evotech@lemmy.world 31 points 1 day ago

It's not up to Pokemon to ban pack opening gambling any more than it is valve to ban item gambling.

It's up to the us government to ban gambling.

I don't think CSGO skin gambling is worse than draftkings or whatever else runs ads on American tv 24/7

[-] Cyv_@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 1 day ago

Pokemon doesn't have direct control of the mechanical system by which pokemon cards are traded. They also don't get a percentage cut whenever a pokemon card is bought/sold on their storefront, and they don't take pokemon cards as payment for games, software, and computer hardware. Valve facilitates, profits from, controls, and could ultimately shut down, these online casino spaces. They actively choose not to, and participate in using loopholes (see the xray scanner). Ideally, yes, the government fixes this. Realistically, any solution that isn't going to take years, and be easily bypassed with a VPN, or just having your company be based in a "sanctuary" country, is going to lie with Valve. Either self enforced or forced by the US govt, they have the means to kill gambling easily because they control the accounts involved, the systems used to trade said items, and the virtual currency players earn. Even something as simple as adding age verification would help. They don't have to stop, just accept responsibility for having an in game slot machine that spits out items that have real world value, and follow laws and measures to protect minors.

So yes. i hold Valve, a massively profitable company directly facilitating and profiting from its illegal gambling industry to the point where the casinos openly sponsor pro teams to a higher standard than the company that prints pokemon cards, which can be bought and sold and gambled with like any physical good in a physical game of chance.

[-] PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works 30 points 1 day ago

Honestly, in a lot of ways, I think this video is a miss. In both this video and to a lesser extent the last, he put a lot of the blame on Valve, but also provides a higher standard to Valve than the other companies covered. So much of this video boils down to "Valve uses lootboxes too," and "Valve needs to do something about this." without addressing Valve's position as a market player nor providing any solution for Valve to actually tackle the casino problem. He even says in the video that Valve previously issued takedowns but nothing changed and many of the casinos didn't even respond to the cease and desist. No other course of action is suggested, and frankly, I don't see any from Valve that wouldn't punish victums and unrelated users far more than the casinos.

This isn't to say Valve is blameless, but Valve is fairly tame for their direct involvement with lootboxes and is competiting directly against companies that use them far more agressively - exactly the reason Coffee previously gave the casinos and those involved with them leniency, and encouraged looking further up the chain. In the same way, I'd say the actual solution here would be for governments to ban underage gambling and enforce those laws - because the more Valve trys to crack down on this or even just avoid it, the more of an advantage the worse players in the space have. Ubisoft and EA have already been attempting to dislodge Steam for years, and its not because they think they can be more moral than Steam.

[-] Aielman15@lemmy.world 41 points 1 day ago

It's not his place to provide a solution: he is a journalist exposing a problem. Do you have such expectations for all journalists talking about any topic?

When articles get shared about any other company using micro/macrotransactions, predatory tactics or gambling-related schemes, people's consensus is unanimous, but when Valve is involved, suddenly people have double standards.

Valve is fairly tame for their direct involvement with lootboxes and is competiting directly against companies that use them far more agressively [...] Ubisoft and EA have already been attempting to dislodge Steam for years, and its not because they think they can be more moral than Steam.

Valve could shut down the entire gambling market today and nothing would change to their market position. Steam is not the number one marketplace because of the skin market. They are leaving it as is because it nets them money. I don't know how can you call Steam "fairly tame" when they are literally allowing multimillion dollar casinos to exist and operate without impunity. They sent a C&D to casinos and then washed their hands of the problem, because ultimately they don't really care about shutting them down.

They could ban accounts linked to the casinos, but they don't, because they profit from them. They could have some sort of account-level check to make sure that minors don't spend their steam gift cards on CS skins (which, by the way, Coffezilla proposes at the end of the video) , but they'd rather use the gambling loophole of "akshually, it's not gambling as defined by law". Then they lie through their teeth by saying that they "don't have any data" supporting the claim that the gambling aspect of the game has profited them by leading to more interest in their games, which is bullshit.

PC players, and Lemmy users in particular, have a huge double standard for Valve.

[-] PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 day ago

It's not his place to provide a solution: he is a journalist exposing a problem. Do you have such expectations for all journalists talking about any topic?

It wouldn't be his place to provide a solution if he was arguing that the practice is a problem and prehaps pushing for further study. It is his place because throughout the video, he tries to argue that solving the problem is not only possible, but easy - and yet, despite supposedly being easy, his best solution is to basically propose that the industry self-regulate. That is the main issue I have with this video.

Valve could shut down the entire gambling market today and nothing would change to their market position.

And how would they do this without screwing over normal users and victums of the casinos in the process? They can't get money from these casinos, nor collect casino records to redistribute scammed money. All they can do is disable trading or their marketplace, effectively seizing the poker chips (or metals balls, following Coffee's pachinko comparison) but doing nothing about the money casinos have taken from victims nor preventing the casinos from either walking away or re-investing in a new casino. To prevent new ones from popping up, you could disable all trading and marketing, but now you're punishing 132 million users for the acts of a couple thousand.

They could have some sort of account-level check to make sure that minors don't spend their steam gift cards on CS skins

They could, but A) this is just one game on their platform, and B) this would leave them directly competiting against those who don't regulate themselves and can make and reinvest significantly more. This is exactly the situation that Coffee argued was systematic and needed to be adressed further up the chain previously.

they'd rather use the gambling loophole of "akshually, it's not gambling as defined by law". Then they lie through their teeth by saying that they "don't have any data" supporting the claim that the gambling aspect of the game has profited them by leading to more interest in their games, which is bullshit.

Again, exactly like their competition. The recent talk of Balatro's PEGI rating being a prime example, with the industry self-regulation body declaring that virtual slot machines and loot boxes aren't gambling but featuring poker hands was.

PC players, and Lemmy users in particular, have a huge double standard for Valve.

This is the problem I have with this video. Valve is being held to a different standard, and told to self-regulate while others in this very series are having blame redirected away from them because its unreasonable to expect them to self-regulate.

[-] Aielman15@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It wouldn't be his place to provide a solution if he was arguing that the practice is a problem and prehaps pushing for further study. It is his place because throughout the video, he tries to argue that solving the problem is not only possible, but easy - and yet, despite supposedly being easy, his best solution is to basically propose that the industry self-regulate. That is the main issue I have with this video.

He is not proposing that the entire industry must self-regulate and that it's the only solution to the problem. He is saying that this specific instance, the CS skin market, could be solved by Valve taking a firm stance, which not only they are not doing, but are actually working against, such as them side-stepping the regulations imposed on them by the French government.

I'm all in for stricter regulations on gambling by government agencies, but that doesn't mean that the people side-stepping those regulations aren't to blame too. While they are not doing anything technically illegal, they are purposefully operating in a grey area to profit off vulnerable people.

And how would they do this without screwing over normal users and victums of the casinos in the process? They can't get money from these casinos, nor collect casino records to redistribute scammed money. All they can do is disable trading or their marketplace, effectively seizing the poker chips (or metals balls, following Coffee's pachinko comparison) but doing nothing about the money casinos have taken from victims nor preventing the casinos from either walking away or re-investing in a new casino. To prevent new ones from popping up, you could disable all trading and marketing, but now you're punishing 132 million users for the acts of a couple thousand.

They can't do anything about the money the casinos have already made, but can stop them by making further money. That happens pretty much all the time in every market.

They could, but A) this is just one game on their platform, and B) this would leave them directly competiting against those who don't regulate themselves and can make and reinvest significantly more. This is exactly the situation that Coffee argued was systematic and needed to be adressed further up the chain previously.

A) The video is explicitly about Counter Strike and the gambling market surrounding that specific game; not the whole industry. I agree a more systemic approach (ie. on a government level) should be advisable, but until that day comes, Valve could put an end to this specific problem, which they are currently choosing to ignore because they are profiting from it instead;
B) Valve makes literally billions and can invest to their heart's content. They are not a small indie dev.

Again, exactly like their competition. The recent talk of Balatro's PEGI rating being a prime example, with the industry self-regulation body declaring that virtual slot machines and loot boxes aren't gambling but featuring poker hands was.

Cool, their competition does it too. Two wrongs don't make a right.

This is the problem I have with this video. Valve is being held to a different standard, and told to self-regulate while others in this very series are having blame redirected away from them because its unreasonable to expect them to self-regulate.

Valve literally created the market. If you take the bigger share of the profit, you also take the biggest share of the blame. Casinos are obviously bad, but they are ultimately leeching off the system that Valve put in place.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Cyv_@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 1 day ago

He did say govt should be involved, and I'd agree generally. Gambling and gambling lite like lootboxes need regulation to die, but Valve is also a massive company running the biggest game storefront in the world, and they don't need the money from the lootboxes and cuts from selling and trading. They aren't in direct competition with most game creators, they compete with other storefronts, and it isn't even close. They could fix this relatively easily and it would barely make a dent in their finances.

They could also leave the lootboxes and gambling up, and just implement an age verification system, one that locks you out of trading until the account is verified 18 or older, and add other tools like locking yourself out of trading or opening boxes similar to how casinos allow you to blacklist yourself for your own good.

In terms of a relatively quick, relatively painless, realistic fix, with a decent timeframe, valve makes the most sense, and they can fix this extremely easily compared to getting every government in the world to agree, implement, and enforce regulations. Ideally, yes, governments fix it. Realistically, kids are getting addicted to gambling and having their lives ruined right now, and valve has the power to stop it. I think it's fair to ask, and expect a real answer, yes or no.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] NocturnalEngineer@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

I know Valve would never do this...

Surely if the items hold no real-world value, putting it on hiatus for an indefinite amount of time would be the answer. The casinos which depend on Valve can't really sue the loss of the feature, as it's always in Valve's purview to remove it at any point from the game & platform.

If they made it a limited time feature in CSGO in a year, they would still achieve the "stickiness".

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2024
255 points (92.1% liked)

Games

32989 readers
1571 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS